ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Bail Appln. No. 60 of 2009.   

 

Date

Order with signature of Judge

 

For hearing

16.03.2009.

                        Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

                        Mr. Muhammad Akram Shaikh, State counsel.

~~~~

 

Syed Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, J-.     This bail application moved by the applicant against the impugned order dated 14.01.2009, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, in Crl. Bail Appln.           No. 12/2009.

 

2.                     Facts of the prosecution case, as narrated in the F.I.R, are that on 12.08.2008, complainant Dildar Ahmed Shar appeared at P.S Lakhi Ghulam Shah and lodged above F.I.R, stating therein that, there exists enmity between Shar and Khosa communities. In the morning of the fateful day complainant alongwith his brother, namely, Gulzar, his cousin Lal Mohammad, his uncle Abdullah went to fish-pond of Shaman Mahar to purchase fishes, where from they freed and left for village and it was about 11.00 a.m. accused Sohrab, Suhbat, Ranjho, Kaloo, Wasayo, Abdul Fateh, Rasheed, Naban, Abdul Ghani, Abdul Ghaffar duly armed with kalashnikoves, Bilawal, Abdul Qayoom, Rahib, Rahim Bux, Illahi Bux, Qaimuddin, Bacho, Nizamuddin, Khuda Bux duly armed with guns and Ahmed alias Ahmedi having pistol in his hand accompanying four unidentified persons came there from Railway track. On arrival, accused Suhrab challenged complainant party by disclosing that they belong to Shar community and are their enemies, therefore, they will not be spared.  Saying so, accused Suhrab fired from his kalashnikov straightly at complainant’s uncle, which hit on his left side of abdomen; accused Suhbat also fired from his kalashnikov straightly at him which also hit him on right side of his abdomen, and accused Ranjho too fired straightly at him which hit on his both legs, who on sustaining firearm injuries fell down by raising cries. Due to fear, the complainant, and PWs: Gulzar and Lal Mohammad hid them in Sim Shaikh. Then the accused persons on seeing complainant’s uncle fallen down ran away towards railway track by making an aerial firing and raising slogans.   The complainant party then saw injured Abdullah who was having injuries on various parts of his body and he passed away on spot. The complainant then leaving witnesses over dead body of his uncle went to police station and lodged F.I.R to the above effect.

 

3.                     Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who contended that prosecution witnesses are closely related to the complainant and highly interested in the case. The specific allegation for causing injuries has been assigned to co-accused Suhrab, Suhbat and Ranjho, who were armed with kalashnikoves and fired at deceased and committed his Qatl-e-Amd. Three co-accused, namely, Sohrab, Suhbat and Ranjho have been let off by the police and their names have been kept in column No.2 of the charge sheet.  He further contended that applicant has been involved in resent case due to enmity. About 20-persons have been involved in the present case. Police has recovered five empties of kalashnikov and not a single empty of pistol has been recovered, whereas applicant was allegedly armed with pistol.  Learned counsel for applicant has referred to 2002 SCMR 1415; in which it has been held as under:

 

                        “Accused persons were attributed role of raising of Lalkara and firing in air without aiming at the complainant or anyone else. Bail was allowed by High Court to the accused persons on the ground of further inquiry. Validity---Accused persons if had any intention to kill the complainant or to dispossess him from the land, there was nobody to prevent the accused persons from doing so. High court had rightly held the role of the accused persons to be that of further inquiry.”

 

                       

4.                     Learned counsel for applicant also referred to case of Mohammad Sadiq and another V. The State, (1996 SCMR 1654), wherein it has been held as under:

 

                        “Accused were alleged to have kept on firing and raising Lalkara at the time of occurrence. Although accused were armed with a pistol and a rifle, yet they did not cause any injury to the complainant party.  Allegation of Lalkara against the accused was proverbial. Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.”

 

 

5.                     I have gone through the impugned order as well as the file of the case in detail. The role attributed to the applicant is that he was armed with pistol at the place of incident and made aerial firing. He has neither fired at the complainant nor at deceased.  In all 20-accused have been implicated in the present case and the specific role has been assigned in the F.I.R to co-accused Sohrab, Suhbat and Ranjho who were armed with kalashnikov and fired at deceased; who have been let of by the police and their names have been kept in column No. II of charge sheet.   There is no any injury by means of pistol on the person of deceased.  Only five empties of kalashnikov have been recovered from place of vardat; however the application is stated to be armed with pistol and made aerial firing with pistol.  In the circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing of two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two lacs) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.

 

6.                    However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Judge